Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Page of 4789
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95770 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders of 09.08.2024 and 30.08.2024 imposing penalty under s.129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Act, 2017. Although the e-way bill had expired and was not renewed, the vehicle carried the goods and invoices at inspection, and the assessing authority failed to demonstrate any material indicating an intention by the petitioner to evade tax. In the absence of requisite satisfaction as to tax-evasion intent, the technical non-compliance alone could not sustain penalty under s.129(3); accordingly the penalty orders were quashed and the petition was allowed.
The HC allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders of 09.08.2024 and 30.08.2024 imposing penalty under s.129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Act, 2017. Although the e-way bill had expired and was not renewed, the vehicle carried the goods and invoices at inspection, and the assessing authority failed to demonstrate any material indicating an intention by the petitioner to evade tax. In the absence of requisite satisfaction as to tax-evasion intent, the technical non-compliance alone could not sustain penalty under s.129(3); accordingly the penalty orders were quashed and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4789
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
